DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Claims 1-8 are pending.
Claims 1-6 are amended. Claims 7-8 are added.
Applicant’s amendments to claims have been fully reviewed and are accepted.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully reviewed with detailed response presented below.
With regard to rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) in previous office action (Non-final rejection dated 03/03/2026), Applicant’s arguments are persuasive in view of amended claim limitation language. Rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) is withdrawn.
With regard to rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 101 in previous office action, Examiner has reviewed amended claim limitation language but finds Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Examiner acknowledges and appreciates Applicant’s discussion during interview (held by telephone 05/27/2026) regarding intended inventive concept of the claimed invention in view of 35 U.S.C. 101 evaluation. Examiner has also taken into consideration a thorough review of USPTO memorandum dated August 4, 2025 for guidance in evaluation of amended claim limitations. A detailed grounds for new rejection is presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fall into statutory categories as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 101 (See MPEP § 2106.03).
Below, an analysis of independent Claims 1, 5, and 6 is presented, with focus on Claim 1, but with the same reasoning and rational being relevant to parallel limitations in Claims 5 and 6.
Claim 1 recites:
“spatial data downscaling method executed by a computer including a memory and a processor, …
acquiring point data and region data as training data,
a point in a geographical space and a value at the point being associated with each other in the point data,
a region in the geographical space and a value in the region being associated with each other in the region data,
the point representing a location the geographical space in a finer granularity than the region in the geographical space, and
the value in the point [data?] and the value in the region [data?] respectively describing values of spatial data;
estimating, based on the training data acquired, parameters of a multivariate Gaussian process model represented by a linear mixture of a plurality of latent Gaussian processes,
the linear mixture of the plurality of latent Gaussian processes being based on the spatial data in distinct granularities according to spatial correlation between the point and another point, between the point and the region, and between the region and another region;
presenting a first region and a value of the first region [data?] on an output device;
interactively receiving a second region as input for downscaling;
calculating, based on the second region, and further based on the multivariate Gaussian processing model comprising the parameters estimated, resolution enhance data, the second region having a finer granularity than the first region, and the resolution enhancement data comprises the second region and a value in the second region; and
updating, based on the resolution enhance data, the first region presented by the output device by presenting the second region [data?] having the finer granularity using distinct representation of the value of the second region on the output device.
STEP 1-Determination of statutory category: Claim 1 falls with the four eligible statutory categories of patentable subject matter, namely: Process (method). Likewise, Claims 5 and 6 fall into the eligible statutory categories of machine (apparatus) and manufacture (computer program product), respectively.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE-Determination regarding whether claim recites a judicial
exception: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. Using broadest reasonable interpretation, claim limitations emphasized in bold above broadest reasonable interpretation of the steps recited in Claim 1 include recite at least one judicial exception. These limitations include: “estimating, based on the training data acquired, parameters of a multivariate Gaussian process model represented by a linear mixture of a plurality of latent Gaussian processes”; “the linear mixture of the plurality of latent Gaussian processes being based on the spatial data”; “interactively receiving a second region as input for downscaling”; “calculating, based on the second region, and further based on the multivariate Gaussian processing model comprising the parameters estimated, resolution enhance data”; “updating, based on the resolution enhance data, the first region”, where interpretation is supported in the specification in at least, FIGs. 1, 3-4, with paragraphs [0027-34], [0061], [0071-100], and including equations 1-31, 71-100. Based on BRI and guidance from the specification, these actions are performed using one or more training algorithms (model(s)). Such limitations constitute a judicial exception of Abstract Idea because under broadest reasonable interpretation and using 2024 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the limitations fall into the grouping of subject matter
that covers performing mathematics (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), I.A,C, III.B,C) Examiner
notes execution of the claimed limitations involve performing mathematics using at least some generic computer components. Examiner notes the limitations as identified may also be considered in the Abstract Idea Mental Process grouping, since depending on the complexity of the evaluation required, evaluation may be performed using pen and paper or mental steps. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) MENTAL PROCESSES) The limitations noted above each fall within the mathematical and/or mental concepts grouping of abstract ideas. The recited process steps are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. Thus, Claim 1, and similarly, Claims 5 and 6 recite a judicial exception in the Abstract Ideas: Mathematical Concepts or Mental Steps grouping.
Step 2A PRONG TWO: Evaluation of additional elements to determine whether
the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. This step of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. Claim 1, and similarly Claims 5 and 6, do recite additional elements However, these additional elements to not recited significantly more than the judicial exception to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application because there is no improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; a particular machine; or effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Examiner notes additional elements including: “acquiring point data and region data as training data” are considered as additional elements for necessary data gathering required to provide data for carrying out the judicial exception as defined in analysis above. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e. receiving data) is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Additional elements of “a point in a geographical space and a value at the point being associated with each other in the point data”, “a region in the geographical space and a value in the region being associated with each other in the region data”, “the point representing a location the geographical space in a finer granularity than the region in the geographical space”, and “the value in the point and the value in the region respectively describing values of spatial data” are considered as generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, but does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Further, additional elements including “presenting a first region and a value of the first region on an output device” and “presented by the output device by presenting the second region having the finer granularity using distinct representation of the value of the second region on the output device” are interpreted as insignificant extra solution activity and as such, these limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Using guidance found in MPEP section 2106.05(g), displaying analysis/results is considered extra solution activity in light of Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Claim 1, and similarly Claims 5 and 6 recite additional elements of computational components recited at a high level of generality. For example, Claim 1 recites “executed by a computer including a memory and a processor”, where the computer is used as a tool to perform the abstract idea through generic computer functions, including receiving data and performing calculational and/or evaluative mathematical process steps. These steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, and as such are considered as insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and (g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,” Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of the controller does not affect this analysis.
The recited additional elements can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).
The identified additional elements as recited in Claim1, and similarly in Claims 5 and 6 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because there is no improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, identified additional elements as recited in Claim 1, and similarly in Claims 5 and 6, do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
STEP 2B: Consideration of whether the claim amounts to significantly more than
the abstract idea.
Additional elements, as discussed above, do not amount significantly more
than the judicial exception because, as noted above, limitations reciting necessary data
gather, even when linked to a particular data source or a type of data, are considered to
be insignificant extra solution activity. And, as above, generic computer elements, such
as the recited “processor” or “memory”, are comprised of generic computer elements and not considered significantly more than the abstract idea. As found in MPEP, 2106.05(b), merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. (see Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94.) (MPEP section 2106.05(g))
When re-evaluated under Step 2B additional elements as identified above, are found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) which are recited in generality and represent insignificant field of use limitations that is not meaningful to indicate a practical application . When evaluated independently or in the combination and arrangement as recited above in Claim 1, and similarly in Claims 5 and 6, identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that claim 1, as well as claims 5 and 6, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Thus, Claims 1, 5, and 6 are directed to a judicial exception and are held to be patent ineligible.
Further eligibility consideration includes evaluation of dependent claims 2-4, with direct dependency to Claim 1. Claims 2-4 recited additional elements, which are found to either further limit the performance of the judicial exception of mathematical concept/mental steps abstract idea or which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These limitations are thus considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims.
In evaluation of newly added Claims 7 and 8, with dependency to Claim 7, recite additional elements, including: (Claim 7) “the value of the point data describes a state of urban environment at a location specified by the point”; “the value of the second region represents a state of urban environment in the second region.” (Claim 8) “the value of the point data represents a traffic volume at a location of the point”; “the value of the second region represents a traffic volume in the second region.” As found for Claims 2-4, the additional elements in dependent claims 7 and 8, as newly added, are interpreted to further describe field of use, but do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Thus, dependent Claims 2-4 and 7-8 recite additional elements which either further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract concept into a practical application or that cannot be considered significantly more than the abstract idea.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure was included in previous office action.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONI D SAUNCY whose telephone number is (703)756-4589. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at 571-270-0349. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TONI D SAUNCY/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights